Current hostilities in Ukraine & the region summarized in one image

image: rense.com

Questions on Ukraine the West chooses not to answer

by: RT NEWS
March 05, 2014 19:

Ukrainian and Western refusal to answer Moscow’s hard questions explains Russia’s tough stance on the crisis in Kiev.

Ignoring Russian concerns is a Western habit adopted after the Soviet Union’s collapse; when NATO bombed Yugoslavia; during the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, and the US push to install an anti-missile shield over Europe that can target Russia.

It also happened recently when Western diplomats flocked to Ukraine to smile and wave and lobby their interests in a future Ukrainian government, while accusing Russia of meddling in Ukrainian affairs.

But it seems that in Ukraine lies Russia’s red line and Moscow no longer takes “don’t know, don’t care” for an answer.

Here’s the questions.

1. Why did the opposition oust Yanukovich after he conceded to their demands?
On February 21, Yanukovich and the three Ukrainian parliamentary faction leaders signed a reconciliation deal co-signed by Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland. A gesture that their countries would serve as agreement guarantors.

The agreement provides a de-escalation roadmap of constitutional reform, a national unity government, early presidential election and disbandment of Maidan fighter groups.

Hours after it was signed, Right Sector radicals, key to the violence unleashed in Kiev which left a hundred people dead, gave Yanukovich an ultimatum: resign or face a siege of his residence.

Against Moscow’s advice, Yanukovich fled.

Vladimir Putin’s comments illuminate the Russian position here: "He [Yanukovich] had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected.. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer."

Russian president Vladimir Putin (AFP photo)

Russia says the February 21 agreement must be implemented. The opposition signed it yet allows an uncontrolled militia of violent armed radicals send fear and loathing across a large swath of Ukraine.

The US says the agreement no longer matters – because Yanukovich fled. The EU signatories don’t seem to be bothered about it either.

2. Why is the coup-appointed govt replacing oligarchs linked to Yanukovich with... oligarchs?
Popular resentment of Yanukovich blossomed over corruption. Protesters pointed to power abuse, theft and allowing linked-oligarchs raid businesses of other clans. Evidence came readily after they fled - photos of their homes’ sumptuous interiors.

But the new self-appointed govt is replacing Yanukovich’s oligarchs with their own. Kiev just appointed billionaires as governors of Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk respectively, a move that also drew Putin’s ire: "Mr. Kolomoisky was appointed governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich two or three years ago. Scammed him.."

Both hold major assets in their respective regions and thousands depend on them for work. Both appointments are meant to stabilize a volatile society and ensure loyalty to the capital but critics say Kiev is reinventing fiefdoms to nobility in exchange for servitude. For Putin, who famously excluded oligarchs from politics, the move is an anathema.

3. Why did the post-coup parliament strip Russian language of its regional status?
A bill repealing a law on regional languages was among dozens rubber-stamped by a chaotic Ukrainian parliament in the first post-coup days. It allowed the Ukrainian nationalist and anti-Russian Svoboda (Freedom) Party put a feather in its cap. Yet it sent a ripple of hostility south and east from Kiev, where Russian-speakers are a large minority or even majority. Kiev pledged to restore the status of Russian but now says the acting Ukrainian president won’t sign such a bill into law.

4. Why did Kiev attack the Constitutional Court?
Several Constitutional Court judges were accused of violating their oath and abruptly fired amid coup govt orders they be prosecuted. The judges branded this as an attack on the principle of separation of powers. Putin called it "monkey business".

As Yanukovich was not procedurally impeached but through a simple show of hands the legality of his impeachment is open to challenges taken by several Ukrainian regions and, diplomatically, by Russia. The Ukrainian Constitutional Court is the proper authority to rule on the issue yet the new Kiev admin is mooting totally disbanding it and giving its functions to the Supreme Court.

5. Why would the West support the coup in Ukraine?
From the Russian perspective, the West fueled the fires of protest and ensured the Ukrainian government was toppled. Now it is attempting to legitimize its factious replacement. What Russia calls an unconstitutional coup, the West is branding a public revolution. It is possible that it is both.

Moscow does not challenge the reality. It doesn’t seek a Yanukovich return to power. It would work with the people who ousted him, as it did with the Yushchenko presidency. But Moscow demands the Kiev coup govt carries a national mandate to govern, in both east and west . Without it, any government is unsustainable.

Putin’s position is that it now maybe too late, despite his repeated warnings Ukraine would polarize. "Did our partners in the West and those who call themselves the government in Kiev now not foresee that events would take this turn? I said to them over and over: Why are you whipping the country into a frenzy like this?"

A stable Ukraine is essential for Russia for many reasons, humanitarian being just few of them. Of course Russia wants ethnic Russians in Ukraine to be safe from potential violence and persecution. But there are also more pragmatic considerations as well.

There’s the Black Sea Fleet, strong economic interdependence and there is gas. Ukraine transits Russian natural gas to Europe and is thus essential to the Russian and European economies. Yet now a desperate Kiev mulls privatizing its gas pipelines to fill its empty coffers, while Moscow’s questions remain unheard.

Talk about collateral damage, 11 children and a woman killed in NATO airstrike against Taliban commanders

[Civilians continue to die from wanton aggression of NATO forces and yet we wonder why the Afghan population is against us...]

file photo; credit: huffingtonpost

• Local officials said the strike hit houses in the Kunar province, Afghanistan
• Said the woman and children died when their homes collapsed on them
• Six insurgents, including two senior Taliban leaders, died in the strike
• International Security Assistance Force said it is assessing incident

By DAILY MAIL
April 7, 2013

A Nato airstrike killed at least 11 children yesterday during an operation targeting Taliban commanders. At least one woman also died in the strike and more than six others were injured in the strike on a village in Shigal district in Kunar province, on the Pakistani border. Six insurgents, including two senior Taliban leaders, were killed in the attack, the Interior Ministry said.

The Interior Ministry did not mention any civilian casualties but Wasefullah Wasefi, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said civilian homes had been hit during an air attack.
'Eleven children and a woman were killed when an air strike hit their houses,' Wasefi said.
Mohammad Zahir Safai, the Shigal district chief, said the woman and the children were killed when the houses collapsed on them.

A spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said they were aware of reports of civilian casualties and were assessing the incident. He said: 'No Isaf personnel were involved on the ground, but Isaf provided fire support from the air, killing several insurgents.

'We are also aware of reports of several civilians injured from the engagement, but no reports of civilian deaths. Isaf takes all reports of civilian casualties seriously, and we are currently assessing the incident. 'The air support was called in by coalition forces - not Afghans - and was used to engage insurgent forces in areas away from structures, according to our reporting.'

Tribal elder Haji Malika Jan told the BBC that fighting began early on Saturday and lasted for at least seven hours.

A Reuters journalist said they saw the bodies of 11 children when they were taken to Safai's office in protest by their families and other villagers on Sunday. The journalist did not see the body of a women and Safai said residents told him of the death. Women's bodies are not displayed, according to custom.

Wasefi also said an American civilian adviser to the Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, had also been killed in the operation. He said it had lasted several hours. The Ministry of Interior said the two dead Taliban commanders, Ali Khan and Gul Raouf, planned and organised attacks in Kunar.

Civilian deaths have been a long-running source of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who banned Afghan troops from calling for air strikes. About ten women and children were killed in February last year in a Nato air strike in the same area of Afghanistan.

The deaths came on the same day that a car bomb killed five Americans, including three U.S. soldiers, a young diplomat and a U.S. Defence Department contractor, in the southern province of Zabul.

The Unfair Biased Treatment of the DPRK (North Korea)

Putting the Squeeze on North Korea

By Gregory Elich

Global Research,
February 04, 2013

Tensions are escalating since North Korea’s launch of a satellite into orbit on December 12, 2012. Overwrought news reports termed the launch a “threat” and a “provocation,” while U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor called it “irresponsible behavior.” Punishment for North Korea was swift in coming.

North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong-3 was just one of 75 satellites that a variety of nations sent into space last year, but Pyongyang’s launch, and a failed launch earlier in the year on April 12, were the only ones singled out for condemnation. [1] In Western eyes, there was something uniquely threatening about the Kwangmyongsong-3 earth observation satellite, unlike the apparently more benign five military and three spy satellites the United States launched last year.

We are told that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, the official name for North Korea) used the satellite launch to test ballistic missile technology. But the North Koreans could hardly have sent their satellite into orbit by slingshot. The Kwangmyongsong-3 was equipped with a camera intended to help assess the nation’s natural resources and forest distribution and to collect crop estimates. The Western press was quick to scoff at the satellite as having no rational economic purpose. Although the satellite failed to become operable, a common enough experience for nations putting their first satellite into space, the intent was to support much-needed ecological recovery in North Korea and to aid agricultural planning.

Specialists argue that the DPRK’s Unha-3 missile, used for the launch, is not a suitable candidate for delivering a nuclear warhead. According to analyst Markus Schiller of Schmucker Technologie in Germany, for North Korea to “become a player in the ICBM game, they would have to develop a different kind of missile, with higher performance. And if they do that seriously, we would have to see flight tests every other month, over several years.” [2] The North Korean missile “was developed as a satellite launcher and not as a weapon,” Schiller says. “The technology was suited only for satellite launch.” Brian Weedan, a space expert at the Secure World Foundation, agrees, and points out that the missile took a sharp turn to avoid flying over Taiwan and the Philippines. “That is definitely something more associated with a space launch than with a ballistic missile launch. It’s not what you would expect to see with a missile test.” [3]

The Unha-3 is simply too small for the job of delivering a nuclear warhead, even assuming that the DPRK had miniaturized a nuclear bomb, an endeavor requiring significant time and effort. The North Koreans would also need to develop a long-range guidance system and a reentry vehicle capable of withstanding the heat of returning through the atmosphere. Experts consider the DPRK to be years away from achieving such steps. [4]

In regard to North Korea’s satellite launches, Lewis Franklin and Nick Hansen of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation remark, “The oft-repeated phrase ‘readily convertible to an ICBM’ posed by non-technical policy experts is engineering-wise unsupportable.” They explain that while other nations have utilized ICBMs for sending satellites into space, conversion of a light missile like the Uhha-3 into an ICBM “requires considerable redesign and testing, and no country has taken this route.” [5]

The other aspect of the launch that the U.S found so provocative was its violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 of June 12, 2009, which enjoined the DPRK from conducting “any launch using ballistic missile technology.” That resolution was prompted by a North Korean nuclear test. Yet, when Israel, Pakistan and India – all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – not only performed testing, but proceeded to build substantial nuclear arsenals and missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads, no action was forthcoming. This double standard has not gone unnoticed in the DPRK, which understands that the distinction between the North Korean case and that of Israel, Pakistan and India hinges on the latter three nations being U.S. allies, while for decades it has been the target of Western sanctions, threats and pressure.

Interestingly enough, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapon-capable ballistic missiles at around the time of North Korea’s failed satellite launch on April 12, 2012. [6] The Indian and Pakistani missiles did not carry satellites; these were purely military tests, a fact which did not perturb the Obama Administration. Criticism was reserved for North Korea alone, while in regard to India’s test, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner merely noted that the U.S. has a “very strong strategic and security partnership with India.” [7] Following Pakistan’s launch, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s only comment was, “What’s most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians.” [8] These mild remarks contrasted with the vociferous abuse poured upon North Korea for its non-nuclear capable missiles carrying satellites.

Since the April ballistic missile launches, India and Pakistan have continued their tests, including India’s test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile fired from underwater, part of its program to develop submarine-based nuclear missiles. [9] India conducted its underwater ballistic missile test on January 27, only a few days after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korea for putting a satellite into orbit.

When North Korea launched its satellite, India condemned the launch as “unwarranted,” and termed it an action adversely impacting peace and stability. [10] That same day, India test fired its nuclear-capable Agni-I ballistic missile, again without complaint by the U.S. [11] And just days after passage of the UN Security Council resolution against the DPRK, Japan put two spy satellites into space, both aimed at North Korea. [12] Not surprisingly, these missile launches evoked no complaint from U.S. officials.

South Korea successfully placed its own satellite into orbit on January 30, 2013, with the complete support of the U.S., which only added to North Korea’s growing sense of irritation over the blatant double standard. The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking. The U.S. sits atop the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, possesses the largest military machine on earth, regularly invades or bombs other nations, threatens nations who refuse to bend to its will, turns a blind eye to tests of ballistic missiles by India, Pakistan and Israel, and it condemns the small nation of North Korea for engaging in “provocative” behavior by sending a peaceful satellite into space.

The DPRK bears the distinction of being the only nation to have a UN Security Council resolution in effect banning it from launching a satellite. Yet, the international outer space treaty affirms that outer space “shall be the province of all mankind,” and that “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind.” [13] Note the language used here: “without discrimination of any kind.” This is absolutely unambiguous. The treaty does not say “except when the powerful choose to deny this right to a small nation.”

Western analysts argue that when a UN Security Council resolution contradicts international law, it is the resolution that takes precedence. That view makes a mockery of international law, which ceases to have any meaning when it can be discarded at will by imperial dictate.

The UN Charter tasks the Security Council to deal with matters relating to “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression.” The DPRK Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea explains that its satellite launches for peaceful purposes “bear no relationship with the issues of international peace and security.” Moreover, the Security Council has never seen fit to take issue with such nations as the United States and Japan “that are speeding up militarization by launching innumerable spy satellites.” [14]

Sensing that the DPRK’s impending satellite launch would present a welcome opportunity, the U.S. started lining up support for imposing further sanctions on the DPRK well before the launch took place. Already the most heavily sanctioned nation on earth, North Korea’s economy could only suffer more damage from new sanctions. That was precisely the Obama Administration’s aim.

In anticipation of North Korea’s missile launch, South Korea under the ever-hostile administration of Lee Myung-bak, worked with other nations to identify the few remaining international bank accounts held by North Korea which had not yet been closed due to U.S. pressure. The hope was that North Korea could be completely blocked from engaging in international trade. The Lee Administration, too, perceived the missile launch as an opportunity to inflict further economic damage on its neighbor to the north. [15]

The Chinese advocated resuming the six-party talks, which were last held in December 2008. “China really believes that we ought to re-engage with North Korea,” U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke remarked, but “we don’t believe that we should be rewarding their bad behavior by sitting down and talking with them.” U.S. diplomats adamantly ruled out talks. During negotiations in December 2012, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice bluntly told a Chinese diplomat that his nation’s resistance to additional sanctions was “ridiculous.” Rice demanded that North Korea face “consequences” for its satellite launch. [16]

U.S. officials are fond of saying that they will not reward the DPRK for its “bad behavior” by talking with its officials, but one cannot help but wonder: just whose behavior is bad? North Korean officials, whose nation exercised its right under international law and put a peaceful satellite into orbit, a right granted to all nations, and who want dialogue, or U.S. officials, who petulantly refuse to engage in negotiations, and who only know how to bully and intimidate?

The first task was to get China onboard with the concept of imposing new sanctions on its neighbor. High-ranking U.S. and South Korean diplomats met with their Chinese counterparts in Beijing on December 17, 2012. The Chinese opposed sanctions, preferring a prudent response. “The Chinese side repeated its stance that it wants to keep peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” a South Korean diplomatic source revealed. But the U.S. had “a strong willingness” to impose sanctions. “The U.S. is also sending a message to China that it will have no choice but to beef up its military readiness against North Korea’s threats unless a resolution is adopted at the U.N. Security Council.” [17]

The United States had already taken a number of steps to increasingly militarize its relations with South Korea in recent months, and it is probable that the threat to expand the U.S. military presence in the region finally persuaded the Chinese to back UN sanctions, despite their inevitable destabilizing effect. A U.S. military buildup in the region would serve a double purpose, aimed not only at North Korea but surely China as well. The Chinese were also keen to avoid straining relations with the U.S, an important trading partner.

Once the U.S. and South Korea won Chinese agreement for a UN Security Council resolution, the Obama Administration had a wish list of harsh measures that it wanted to implement via the resolution. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced that the Obama Administration’s plan was “to continue to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime. And we’re looking at how best to do that, both bilaterally and with our partners going forward. Until they get the message, we’re going to have to continue to further isolate this regime.” Responding to a reporter who commented that North Korea “has long wanted direct talks with the U.S.,” and asked if the U.S. would consider that or stick to the six-party format, Nuland dismissively replied, “We and our partners are not in the business of rewarding them.” [18] There would be no talks of any kind.

U.S. negotiators insisted that the UN Security Council pass a resolution rather than a presidential statement, so that it would carry more force. Under pressure, the Chinese relented. The specific sanctions to be imposed were another matter. There the Chinese were more successful. The U.S. wanted to maximize the damage that would be inflicted on the North Korean people. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said, “The initial draft prepared by the UNSC contained a number of sanctions, but China believed that such measures would not be helpful in defusing the situation and would only cause harm to the North Korean economy and the lives of its people. As a result of more than a month of protracted negotiations, these provisions were removed from the final draft of the resolution.” [19]

UN Security Council resolution 2087 passed unanimously on January 22, 2013, ordering the DPRK to cease launching satellites, and that “any further such activities” would result in its “determination to take significant action.” A number of measures were imposed, including travel bans and asset freezes on specified individuals involved in the DPRK’s space program and banking officials assisting in its financial dealings. Asset freezes were also slapped on the North Korean Committee for Space Technology and North Korean banks and firms involved in the space program, essentially blocking those organizations from engaging in normal international financial transactions. [20]

The U.S. and South Korea immediately began planning further sanctions that they could impose on a bilateral basis. The U.S. had already stopped food aid to North Korea many months beforehand. Among the alternatives the U.S. and South Korea discussed were stepping up inspections of North Korean ships and ways to hamper North Korean ships from travelling near the Korean Peninsula. [21] The U.S. Treasury Department wasted little time in implementing its first set of bilateral sanctions, acting the day after passage of the UN Security Council resolution. It announced that all assets under U.S. control would be frozen held by two North Korean bankers and Hong Kong-based Leader International Trading Limited. [22]

South Korea had already revised its Public Order in Open Ports Act so that it required entry clearance for container ships having visited a North Korean port during the prior 180 days; an increase from the earlier 60 day limit. A South Korean official said that Seoul intended to target shipments into and out of the DPRK. “We are considering sanctions in marine transport. Now that we have already set the legal grounds, we will start talks with other countries over additional sanctions.” [23] The intention is to cut maritime supply routes to North Korea.

Pressure on North Korea is two-fold: economic sanctions and military presence. In the midst of UN Security Council deliberations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called for the reorientation of NATO, to “broaden the scope of our alliance security discussions beyond European and regional issues.” The U.S. has led the expansion of NATO military operations first in its bombing operations in the Balkans, then later in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The aim is for NATO to support aggressive U.S. military operations, across all continents that adjoin Europe and the Mediterranean. “In particular,” Panetta continued, “I strongly believe that Europe should join the United States in increasing and deepening defense engagement with the Asia-Pacific region…The bottom line is that Europe should not fear our rebalance to Asia; Europe should join it.” [24]

However, there is one thing one can say about the North Koreans. They are never cowed by imperial bullying.

Shortly before passage of the UN Security Council resolution, the DPRK sent a message to the United States, calling for negotiations to settle security concerns. That message apparently went unanswered. [25]

As soon as the UN resolution passed, the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued its response, stating that it “flatly rejects the unjust acts of the UNSC aimed at wantonly violating the sovereignty of the DPRK and depriving it of the right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes. The hostile forces are seriously mistaken if they think they can bring down the DPRK with sanctions and pressure.” The Foreign Ministry asserted that the “DPRK will continue to exercise its independent and legitimate right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes while abiding by the universally recognized international law on the use of space for peaceful purposes.” Furthermore, “the DPRK will continuously launch satellites for peaceful purposes.”

Noting that U.S. hostility remains unchanged, the DPRK Foreign Ministry concluded that “the prospect for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has become gloomier,” and so “there may be talks for peace and stability…but no talks for the denuclearization of the peninsula.” North Korea, it said, “will take steps for physical counteraction to bolster the military capabilities for self-defense, including nuclear deterrence…to cope with the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to apply sanctions and apply pressure against the DPRK.” [26] First a peace settlement must be reached; only then can talks on denuclearization can proceed.

Events on the Korean Peninsula are heading in a potentially dangerous direction. New sanctions on the DPRK and the refusal of the Obama Administration to engage in dialogue have eliminated any exit strategy. North Korea, feeling threatened, may conduct another nuclear test to further develop the best defense it has against military aggression and to assert its independence. However, South Korea promises “very grave consequences” if it follows that path. [27] The U.S. has made similarly threatening statements.

According to South Korean presidential national security advisor Chun Yung-woo, consequences must be imposed on the DPRK that it finds intolerable. North Korea must choose between nuclear weapons or its survival, he declared. “No other options must be allowed.” [28]

Ratcheting up pressure on the DPRK, the U.S. and South Korea kicked off joint naval military exercises in the East Sea on February 4, 2013, including the nuclear submarine USS San Francisco. “Through this joint military exercise, we will be able to deliver a message to North Korea that if they engage in a defiant act, it won’t be tolerated,” warned Jung Seung-jo, chairman of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff. [29]

North Korea has always responded in kind. When approached diplomatically, it negotiates and when threatened, it resists. Neither the U.S. nor South Korea is open to dialogue at the present time. Both are bent on exacerbating tensions.

China is attempting to dissuade the DPRK from carrying out another nuclear test, aware of the dangers that U.S. and South Korean aggressive reaction could present. But even if North Korea refrains from conducting another nuclear test, it is clear that the U.S. is seeking a pretext – any pretext – to squeeze North Korea harder, and it may not take much to plunge the Korean Peninsula into a terrible crisis.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Liberators-Militarism-Mayhem-Pursuit/dp/1595265708 
Notes
[1] http://www.satelliteonthenet.co.uk/index.php/2012

[2] “Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets,” Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[3] Ken Dilanian, “Experts Debate North Korea’s Missile Goals and Capability,” Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2013.

[4] “Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets,” Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[5] Steven Haggard, “More on the Missile Test,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 19, 2012.

[6] Aleksandr Zakharovich Zhebin, “Pyongyang will Respond to the United Nations with a Nuclear Explosion: North Korea is Abandoning the Promises of Denuclearization,” Nezavismaya Gazeta, January 25, 2013.

[7] Heather Timmons and Jim Yardley, “Signs of an Asian Arms Buildup in India’s Missile Test,” New York Times, April 19, 2012.

[8] Sami Zubeiri, “Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile,” Agence France-Presse, April 25, 2012.

[9] “India Tests Underwater Ballistic Missile,” UPI, January 27, 2013.

[10] “India Terms North Korean Rocket Launch ‘Unwarranted,” Deccan Herald, December 12, 2012.

[11] “India Successfully Test-fires Agni-I Ballistic Missile,” Press Trust of India, December 12, 2012.

[12] Stephen Clark, “Japan Launches Spy Satellites into Orbit,” Space Flight Now, January 28, 2013.

[13] http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

[14] Ri Hyon-to, “We Reject the UN Security Council ‘Resolution’ Fabricated Under US Initiative,” Rodong Sinmun, January 29, 2013.

[15] Kim Young-jin, “Seoul Seeks to Freeze NK Accounts,” Korea Times, December 5, 2012.

[16] “N. Korea Not Expected to See U.N. Penalties this Year for Rocket Launch,” Global Security Newswire, December 18, 2012.

“China Resists Moves to Sanction N. Korea: Diplomats,” Agence France-Presse, December 18, 2012.

[17] “U.S. Pressing China to Back U.N. Punishment for N. Korea: Source,” Yonhap, December 18, 2012.

[18] Victoria Nuland, Daily Press Briefing, U.S. Department of State, December 17, 2012.

[19] Park Min-hee, “What Made China Vote for UN Sanctions on North Korea?”, Hankoreh, January 24, 2013.

“China Says New UN Resolution on DPRK ‘Generally Balanced,’ Xinhua, January 23, 2013.

[20] UN Security Council SC/10891, “Security Council Condemns Use of Ballistic Missile Technology in Launch by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in Resolution 2087 (2013),” January 22, 2013.

[21] “S. Korea, U.S. Ponders ‘Additional Sanctions’ Against N. Korea,” Yonhap, January 23, 2013.

[22] Press Release, “Treasury Sanctions Company and Individuals Linked to North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Program,” U.S. Department of Treasury, January 24, 2013.

[23] Park Hyung-ki and Shin Hyon-hee, “S. Korea Analyzed Salvaged N. Korean Rocket Debris,” Korea Herald, December 14, 2012.

[24] Jorge Benitez, “Panetta: NATO Needs to Join U.S. Rebalance to Asia-Pacific,” Atlantic Council NATO Alliance News Blog, January 18, 2013.

[25] “N. Korea Sends ‘Ultimatum’ to U.S. on Nuke Issue: Newspaper,” Yonhap, January 21, 2013.

[26] “DPRK Refutes UNSC’s ‘Resolution’ Pulling Up DPRK over its Satellite Launch,” KCNA, January 23, 2013.

[27] “S. Korea Warns N. Korea Will Face ‘Grave Consequences’ in Case of Nuclear Test,” Yonhap, January 31, 2013.

[28 “S. Korea Calls for ‘Intolerable’ Sanctions Against N. Korea’s Nuke Ambition,” Yonhap, January 30, 2013.

[29] Jeong Yong-soo, “U.S. Sends Submarine to East Sea,” JoongAng Ilbo, February 2, 2013.

Park Byong-su, “Large South Korea-US Military Exercises to Involve Nuclear Submarine,” Hanyoreh, February 2, 2013.

Copyright © Gregory Elich, Global Research, 2013

ACT OF WAR: Syria intercepts and detains civilian airliner en route to Syria from Moscow

Turkish F16s intercept Syrian civilian flight from Moscow to Damascus
RT NEWS
October 11, 2012

 
A Syrian passenger plane which was forced to land sits at Esenboga airport in Ankara October 10, 2012. (Reuters/Cem Oksuz/Anadolu Agency)

Turkish F-16 fighter jets forced a Syrian airline passenger plane to land in Ankara over suspicions it was carrying "non-civilian" cargo. The Damascus-bound plane, which had departed from Moscow, has departed after a nine-hour inspection.

Ankara has granted the Syrian plane a departure clearance, after Turkish security confiscated its suspicious cargo, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a local broadcaster.

“Just because of the clear evidence that we received, we negotiated with our prime minister and decided to let the plane fly on to Syria with the passengers, but we are going to hold on to the material because of the ongoing investigation and the next steps,” he said. “Our investigation is continuing. Since there might be materials that were supposed to be declared but have not been, we are holding this material in our hands to continue to inspect.”

Earlier, Davutoglu said that Ankara had received intelligence that the Syrian plane was carrying "certain equipment in breach of civil aviation rules," but refused to comment on the presumed content.

The Turkish authorities were interested in some spare parts, which a businessman bought in Russia and was transporting to Syria, passenger Fatima Al-Saman told RT. She said they were clearly not weapons.

“They started unloading some packages. They opened them, took pictures. There were many people. We all saw what was in there. There were no weapons. You could see it with an unaided eye!” she said.

Al-Saman added the search involved only luggage, and the passengers were mainly ignored by the Turks. Russian diplomats arrived at the airport but were reportedly not allowed to meet with the passengers.

[...]

The Airbus, which belongs to Syrian Air, was intercepted on its way from Moscow by F16 jets and forced to land at the capital's Esenboga Airport as it entered Turkish airspace.

Turkey is determined to stop any transfer of weapons to Syrian administration through its airspace, Davutoglu said Wednesday. The FM added that Turkey has every right under the international law to investigate any civilian plane suspected to be carrying military materials.
Meanwhile, Ankara has banned Turkish passenger flights from entering Syrian airspace.

"All civilian flights in Syrian airspace have been stopped since it is no longer safe," the ministry added in their Wednesday statement. A Turkish plane that had already taken off for Saudi Arabia made a detour and landed at the Adana airport, reports Today's Zaman newspaper.
17 Russians, including kids, onboard – Russian Foreign Ministry to RT

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said diplomats are already heading to the airport and sent an information request to the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

“The preliminary information is that out of 35 passengers, there may be 17 Russians on board, children among them,” Maria Zakharova, the chief of the Foreign Ministry’s Information Department, exclusively told RT.

Tensions between Turkey and Syria have escalated since a Syrian shell killed five civilians in the border town of Akcakale last week...

(click here to read the full article and view pictures)

NATO responsible for 1995 Srebrenica massacre? Damning evidence backs up claim from Mladic trial

NATO tied to Muslim slaughter at Srebrenica
Press TV
Jul 3, 2012


Muslim massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, Image credit: Press TV

One of the most brutal incidents in recent history is the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995 by a paramilitary group known as "the Scorpions." We now have a top level witness and reams of official documents that categorically prove that it was NATO ordered, not only the Dutch "stand down" that led to the killings, but recruited, paid and controlled the Scorpions as well.

It was the trial of Ratko Mladic that may be the destruction of the ICC or at least should be. As Timothy Blanchford-Henchly points out in the Serbian SOS, "The Ratko Mladic trial at the farcical International Criminal Court - that travesty of justice and insult to international law which kidnaps people, illegally detains them and does not apply the principles of due process - has been interrupted indefinitely after the prosecution "forgot" to deliver thousands of pages of evidence to the defense."

Background

It was this key evidence and this witness, now safely in Belarus that caused the ICC to stop the trial of Ratko Mladic, the "fall guy" documents show was "set up" by the French DRM in 70 communiqués we now hold.

[...]

ICC collapse at Ratco Mladic trial

The International Criminal Court at The Hague suffered a fatal blow when it was discovered in May 2012, during the trial of Ratco Mladic that something was very wrong. On May 16, 2012, the trial of Mladic, accused of heading a group called "the Scorpions," and murdering of up to 6000 Bosnian Muslims suddenly ended. Judges said it was because of "prosecutorial misconduct" in "withholding vital evidence that would have favored the defense. Documents were discovered that categorically proved the most fear mass murderers of recent years were not only not under Mladic's control, they never heard of him.
They were part of NATO.

That evidence is beyond top secret, well beyond and we have it, documents, testimony, evidence withheld by the ICC, the judges, the prosecutors, evidence that should lead to a new direction with new indictments. Problem is, as usual, the ICC targets "low hanging fruit" or takes "orders" and has yet to show the first signs of either independence or effectiveness.

The ICC feels no shame, itself being in a way, fully complicit "after the fact" in covering up the Srebrenica massacres. Currently, the primary goal of the ICC is to seem irrelevant, understandable, I guess.

Documents turned over to the government of Belarus by a Major of the French DRM, their "external intelligence agency." In an article from Pravda this week, we are given a broad picture of events in the Balkans that directly contradict much we have been told and places responsibility for the civil wars in the Balkans on Western powers.

[...]

BELGRADE - A French major, serving with their intelligence services, fled to Belarus with the evidence that war crimes committed in Srebrenica in 1995. The documents he presented shows that the “genocide” blamed on Serbians was organized by the American, British and French secret intelligence service, and carried out by a paramilitary group known as the "Scorpions" in order for the alleged genocide have accused the military and civilian officials of the Republic of Serbian (RS) - learned "Pravda."

According to our source, the major French military intelligence DRM has evidence that the wartime commander of the VRS Main Staff, Ratko Mladic was not aware of these activities. From the document, which is the possession of Belarus, the French officer requested and received political asylum on the June 29, 2012 in Minsk.

The documents clearly show that Naser Oric and all the commanders of the Army of Bosnia/Herzegovina (Muslim) in this part of eastern Bosnia were under constant control of the western intelligence services. Oric was the Bosnian Muslim commander in Srebrenica and was convicted by the ICC of war crimes against Serbs but found "not guilty" of broader crimes of ethnic cleansing.

[...]

Documents indicate that NATO misreported combat casualties, in this case numbering up to 6000 as civilian victims and credited their deaths to Scorpion units when, in fact, they were killed in combat with the Bosnian Serb army. However, this still doesn't mitigate the 4500 civilians killed; the Scorpions involved, but credit the command of Scorpion units to NATO commander and control.

Reason for coming forward

"Major TD" states that he is coming forward with the documents he secured, because he wishes the families of the victims of Srebrenica to know the full truth about who killed their loved ones and why. T.D. served as a Lieutenant in command of a DRM unit in Bosnia at the time and has direct personal knowledge of the events reported here and has, as we had stated previously, made himself available for testimony and offers his documentation for consideration by the prosecutors at the ICC.

TD states very simply, "I could not live with this burden on my conscience.

Conclusion

What we have are a number of iconic episodes.

1. Serbs were demonstrated to be beasts
2. NATO was seen to be the savior of mankind
3. The Netherlands was blamed for standing aside during a massacre, a nation of cowards
4. The "Scorpions" was a "sexed up" CIA/DRM/MI6 front group that could be used to conveniently victimize potential Serbian war criminals.

In truth, the Balkan wars after the fall of communism were among the most vicious in history. For every Kosovan killed by a Serb, a Serb was killed by a Kosovan. In fact, Kosovo and Albania have long been the home of the most powerful criminal organizations in the world.

They are now full partners with the CIA and NATO though the current president of Kosovo is an accused war criminal himself. In an article from Global Research, "The report, the existence of which has not been previously reported, was widely distributed among all NATO countries, according to former NATO sources interviewed by GlobalPost. And year after year as the nascent democracy of Kosovo struggled to move forward and Thaci rose to political prominence, more detailed allegations and intelligence reports, totaling at least four more between 2000 and 2009, would name Thaci, these sources add...

(click here to read the full article)

Western-backed Syrian Rebels Ransack Christian Churches

NATO-backed thugs desecrate places of worship

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Shocking images have emerged which show the aftermath of Christian churches ransacked by NATO-backed Syrian rebels, illustrating once again how western powers are supporting Muslim extremists in their bid to achieve regime change in the middle east.



A photograph provided to us by a Christian woman in Homs, scene of some of the bloodiest clashes of the conflict, shows a member of the Free Syrian Army posing with a looted Catholic cross in one hand and a gun in the other while wearing a priest’s robe.

“Everyone knows simply removing these garments from the church is a sin. The priest is the only one who wears them too. They even pray before putting them on. Him posing in front of the funeral car as well is disgusting to the max,” our source told us.

“They destroyed the church and went in to film it. I know this for a fact.”

“The Robes can only be worn by Deacons or Priests or Sub-Deacons, and they a Christian man wouldn’t hold a Cross in one hand and a gun in another,” the woman adds

Another image shows a ransacked church in Bustan al-Diwan (Old Homs).



While Syrian rebels busy themselves ransacking Christian churches, they’re also rallying around the Al-Qaeda flag just as their counterparts did in Libya.

This video shows Syrian “activists” flying the Al-Qaeda flag during an anti-Assad protest in the northern Syrian town of Binnish.

In another clip, armed Syrian rebels address the camera standing behind a table draped with the black Al-Qaeda flag.

Last month we highlighted a photo published by French news agency AFP that shows a Syrian rebel wearing the Al-Qaeda flag on his arm accompanying UN observers in the village of Azzara.

Why are western governments who are supposed to be engaged in a ‘war on terror’ against radical Muslim terrorists handing those very same terrorists control over entire countries?



A third image sent by our source shows another place of worship, Church Um Al Zinar, with part of its roof missing thanks to Syrian rebels who have been portrayed by the international media as saints despite their involvement in terrorist bombings and massacres.

The latest terror attack carried out by rebels occurred earlier today when gunmen stormed a pro-government TV station, bombing buildings and shooting dead three employees.

The sight of NATO-backed rebels desecrating Christian places of worship is becoming a recurring theme.

Back in March we reported on shocking video footage which showed Libyan rebels desecrating Christian and Jewish graves at a cemetery.

The clip shows Libyan rebels breaking apart headstones while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. The men later try to smash up a large Christian cross statue with sledgehammers.

Watch the clip below.

Shock footage: Syrian family allegedly slain by Western-backed Syrian rebels

(GRAPHIC VIDEO)

RT News
June 28, 2012


RT footage: Syrian family slain by rebels WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES

Footage showing the results of an alleged massacre in the Syrian city of Hama in April has been obtained by RT. Sources say that opposition rebels committed the atrocity.
The video shows the bloodstained bodies of four victims lying on body-bags on the floor of a morgue. It then goes on to show a number of bodies, including those of women and children in a house that looks to have been attacked. The victims’ bodies display evidence of severe trauma, bullet wounds and burns.

At the beginning of the video three children are shown in tears, the older girl demands to be allowed to go to the hospital to see her mother.

“What was these children’s fault? Why were they killed?” she shouts at the camera.
According to RT sources opposition rebel groups were responsible for the massacre.
The video is dated April 18, six days after the UN-brokered ceasefire officially came into effect. In spite of the truce consistent reports of violence on the part of opposition groups and regime forces have continued to come out of the country.

Another massacre occurred in Hama on June 6, where up to 80 people were killed in the village of al-Qubair. UN observers were unable to ascertain who was behind the attack. The opposition claimed that pro-regime militia group “Shabiha” was to blame, while the Syrian government said armed terrorist were behind the mass killing...

(click here to read the full article)

More on the NATO plane shot down over Syria

Note: The F-4`s are known as 'air weasels' who sniff out the air-defenses of a host country and used for probing attacks on air-defense batteries and carry out reconnaissance. Its no surprise a NATO jet flown by Turkey would be conducting such a operation like this. The F-4`s, even though 30 years old, are the work horses for conducting the initial phase of warfare to plan the air and ground war campaign....As always there's always more than meets the eye. - RSA

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
June 27, 2012

Once again the Western press preys on the ignorance of the population as a whole, freely admitting that a Turkish jet entered Syrian airspace (later confirmed here) but was “a mile into international waters” by the time it was shot down.

Technicalities
The F-4 fighter jet, the newest of which are already around 30 years old, has a top speed of mach 2.2, or 1,600 mph/2,500 kph. That means in one minute it can travel 26 miles – or nearly one mile ever 2 seconds.

Any anti-aircraft weapon fired against Turkey’s admittedly “off course” fighter aircraft would have certainly been fired while the aircraft was well within Syrian airspace with the fired ordnance airborne and on course to intercepting the aircraft before the aircraft traveled back over international waters. Turkey’s claim of being “a mile” within international airspace may seem reasonable to the average reader accustomed to traveling at speeds where a mile is relatively far, but in terms of air combat, a mile equates into seconds.

Turkey, acutely aware of the immense tensions it itself has cultivated with neighboring Syria, exercised reckless abandon by traveling so closely to Syrian airspace. What readers may also be unaware of is the role US-built F-4′s play in scouting out and neutralizing air defense systems. Designated “wild weasels,” F-4′s had been extensively used in the opening phases of war against Iraq in 1991, flying 2,596 sorties, firing more than 1,000 air-to-ground missiles, and destroying more than 200 targets in a campaign aimed at destroying Iraqi air defenses.

Perhaps hoping the average reader is profoundly ignorant to how speeds, trajectories, and weapons of modern warfare work, the press has attempted to portray the downing of the F-4 as a provocative act carried out entirely over international waters. In reality, Turkey’s jet was fired upon in Syrian airspace, by its own account, as it was supposedly in “international space” for only one or two seconds before finally being struck. Syria claims the entire event took place over Syrian waters – a claim NATO has been unable to refute with anything more substantial than mere rhetoric.

Act of War
Turkey has been admittedly harboring, arming, and supporting terrorists within its borders to destabilize neighboring Syria, according to US policy makers. Turkey has also made multiple threats against Syria, threatening partial invasion and conducting blockades. When a Turkish fighter crossed into Syrian airspace, Syria had every right to believe it was merely the next stage of military escalation implemented by NATO through its member-state Turkey.

Compounding Turkey’s provocative violation of Syria’s airspace, at the loss of one of its fighters, it with NATO’s explicit backing, is trying to escalate an already unjustified posture of war and aggression against Syria. The United Nations has been characteristically mute over these brazen violations of world peace as the West pursues openly a campaign to overthrow the government of Syria and replace it with a suitable proxy regime of its own preference...

(click here to read the full article)

Will downing of Turkey`s (vis-a-vis NATO) jet by Syria result into pretext for Syrian war finally?

Gulf of Tonkin redux? Prelude to waging war on Syria?
Press TV
Tue Jun 26, 2012

Lyndon Johnson wanted war on Vietnam and got it. The August 1964 false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident initiated full-scale conflict after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

War was authorized without declaring it.

It's an American tradition. Big lies launch wars. Manufactured pretexts initiate them. Mass killing and destruction follow.

One nation after another is ravaged. Syria's next, then Iran. Expect other states on Washington's hit list to follow.

On June 22, two Turkish warplanes provocatively entered Syrian airspace low and fast. Perhaps they were testing its defense systems or probing for other reactions.

Doing so showed hostile intent. It wanted a response and got it.

Ankara's directly involved in Washington's war on Syria. It's arming insurgents. It provides safe havens.

F-4 Phantom

On June 23, Syria's SANA state media headlined "Military Spokesman: Anti-Air Defenses Intercepted a Target That Violated Syrian Airspace Over Territorial Waters, Shot It Down West of Lattakia," saying, "At 11:40 AM on 22/6/2012, an unidentified aerial target violated Syrian airspace, coming from the west at a very low altitude and at high speed over territorial waters, so the Syrian anti-air defenses counteracted with anti-aircraft artillery, hitting it directly as it was 1 kilometer away from land, causing it to crash into Syrian territorial waters west of Om al-Tuyour village in Lattakia province, 10 kilometers from the beach."

Syria's military spokesman also said naval forces from both countries were "searching for the two missing pilots."

On June 23, Turkey's Today's Zaman headlined "Turkey says Syria down(ed) its air force jet," saying, the incident will "likely....worsen already strained relations between" both countries.

[...]

On June 24, Turkey's Hurriyet daily said "wreckage of a Turkish jet shot down by Syria (was found) in Syrian waters....Turkish news channels reported (it) on Sunday, without citing a source."

On June 24, Reuters headlined the truth in a two paragraph report, saying:

"Wreckage of downed Turkish jet found in Syrian waters: TV." 
"Search teams have located the wreckage of a Turkish fighter jet shot down by Syria on Friday in Syrian waters at a depth of 1,300 meters, Turkish news channels reported on Sunday, without citing a source."

Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) featured the same information, saying:

"Turkish TV: downed plane wreckage found in Syrian waters."

[...]

Moreover, violating another country's airspace by trying to avoid its defensive capabilities at low altitude shows clear hostile intent.

Damascus has every right to consider these type actions aggressive and threatening. Turkey would react the same way. So would Washington, key NATO partners and Israel.

A virtual state of war exists in Syria short of officially declaring it. These type incidents can easily be used as pretexts for full-blown conflict. It remains to be seen if Washington has that in mind...

Turkish TV reports said two military aircraft were on a reconnaissance mission.

In fact, Ankara acted provocatively. Likely it was at the behest of Washington. Turkey is a NATO member. It can invoke NATO Charter Articles 4 or 5.

Article 4 calls for members to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any" is threatened.

Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all, and calls for collective self-defense.

[...]

Moreover, violating another country's airspace by trying to avoid its defensive capabilities at low altitude shows clear hostile intent.

Damascus has every right to consider these type actions aggressive and threatening. Turkey would react the same way. So would Washington, key NATO partners and Israel.

A virtual state of war exists in Syria short of officially declaring it. These type incidents can easily be used as pretexts for full-blown conflict. It remains to be seen if Washington has that in mind.

(click here to read the full article)

America imports more oil from Africa than Saudi Arabia

Now it seems it more like AFRI-'CON' than AFRICOM, don`t you think?

Africa and AFRICOM
[http://www.oilempire.us/africa.html] :

-a new front of the War of Terror
-the old grab for resources: oil, minerals, farmland

(from 2008) If Senator Obama is allowed to become President of the Oil Empire, look for US intervention in Africa to increase dramatically. The cover of the new "War on Terror" will be used to mask the grab for African oil and minerals.

This is probably the real goal of the recently created "Africa Command" (AFRICOM) military command.

The archives of (the now closed) From the Wilderness website at www.fromthewilderness.com have several excellent articles about Africa, geopolitics and the rush of the superpowers (US and China) to control African oil supplies.

www.fromthewilderness.com

credit: http://www.oilempire.us/africa.html

Recap: The truth about Libya, Col. Gaddafi and the Illuminati (A MUST WATCH Video)

The REAL truth on NATO, LIBYA, 'AL-CIA-da, bin Laden, IRAQ, Saddam Hussein, Col. Gaddafi, Barak Obama, mainstream news media

[...]

"The honorable late Col. Gaddafi has been made to look like a fool by western media, but listen to his words carefully with an open mind and without factoring in all the bullshit the 'mainstream news media' had fed us and continues to feed us everyday."


http://youtu.be/iDvlJ_1DoSI
Uploaded by lookmiguel on Oct 25, 2011

Libya S.O.S

FAIR USE STATEMENT: This Video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making this material available in an effort to advance understanding of , political, religion, human rights, economic, and social justice issues, etc

Copyright Disclaimer [Rubaiat`s Blog]:
The use of incidental copyrighted material is covered under 'Fair Use' (Copyright Act, 1976) Title 17 U.S.C Section 107, with particular emphasis on such use for educational and non-profit purposes. Under Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act (1976), allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. This video and/or material may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this video and/or information is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.Fair Use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of Fair Use (Moe, AllSeeingEye). If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'Fair Use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act-
In Aug 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California, ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
[View the blog`s full Fair Use Copyright Disclaimer at the end of the homepage] 

NATO shield ad protection for a non-NATO country (Israel)...where`s the hypocrisy in that?

Turkish MP: NATO missile system in Turkey aimed at protecting Israel
Press TV
Sun May 20, 2012

A Turkish opposition lawmaker has said the principal reason for the deployment of NATO’s missile system in Turkey is to protect the Israeli regime.

People hold a banner reading "we don't want to be a missile shield in Kurecik," demonstrating against the deployment of NATO early warning radar system in Turkey in October 2011 (file photo).

Turkish People’s Republican Party (CHP) representative to the parliament from the Malatya Province, where the NATO missile system is deployed, described the system as an “American scheme” aimed at protecting the Tel Aviv regime and guaranteeing its security in the Middle East region, saying that the plan is not at all linked to Turkish people and the country’s national security.

The opposition parliamentarian slammed the "dual policy" of the Turkish government in the region, saying that on the one hand it claims to defend people’s rights in face of oppressive governments, but, on the other hand, it acts from behind the scenes as an element of global powers in protecting the existence of the Israeli regime.

The Turkish lawmaker also emphasized that all of the country’s political parties, except the ruling Justice and Development Party, are opposed to the deployment of NATO’s missile system in Turkey.

In March, Turkish opposition parties brought extra pressure on the government over its decision to host the missile system in Malatya. Several opposition lawmakers submitted written questions about the system, urging the government to bring the issue before the parliament for approval.

MFB/MA